Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Here (0th nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WINAD. VV 05:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. The article goes beyond being a dictionary [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 05:18, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Sure, perhaps I should say that it has nothing encyclopedic in it. Will we have articles for there, now, because? (Okay, we have the first two, but they're for other things.) VV 05:41, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain -- I agree that the page raises WINAD issues, but it really sounds like something from the HHGTTG. Klanda 05:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Slight problems, but overall an encyclopedic look at the concept of here, which goes beyond a dicdef —siroχo 06:44, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, for amusement if nothing else. -Sean Curtin 09:31, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has already been through the wringer about a year ago. Looks like I need to get busy on because. Smerdis of Tlön 11:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:21, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. A small part of the article defines "here." The rest is just a few references to the word. If I had more votes, I'd vote delete twice more just to counter the "amusement" vote and the "HHGTTG" vote. -- WOT 19:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to BJAODN. — Gwalla | Talk 22:09, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep just because the last paragraph is wonderful. -- Jmabel 01:42, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's part dicdef, part philosophy, part brilliant prose and entirely the funniest thing I've read all day, but it ain't an encyclopedia article. sjorford 13:13, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • comment: Right now it's a little useful and a lot silly. Can we maybe increase the usefulness while decreasing the silliness without it becoming a dicdef? Probably not, but it could be worth a try. -R. fiend 15:30, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, I do not see how. Delete unless substantially improved within the discussion time. Transwiki to Wiktionary. Rossami 00:38, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Amusing, but I don't think it belongs, ahem, here. Delete Lacrimosus 05:38, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete? I think not! This is the epitomy of a philological article, well-written and with humor. If this article falls to deletion, then the Pokemon editors really have won the ball game. Denni☯ 03:10, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)
  • Keep The Steve 07:18, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Artistic, and, in my opinion, useful enough. - RedWordSmith 17:36, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: it's more than a word; it's a concept.Wolfman 20:35, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Dittaeva 20:42, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Here_(0th_nomination)&oldid=1137907985"